News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Not to make a side-note, but is Calvinism as hugely apparent in America as posts on this board seem to suggest? I've never truly met a Calvinist in all my life, (I honestly haven" living all of it in Denver, Colorado - though I admit I'm young! My only, one, actual encounter with a Calvinist was when my World Religions teacher in high school invited a Calvinist to speak in our class; he came in to class with his black garments and collar, like an actual priest, walked up to the podium, pointed to the entire class with his finger in a half-circular, sweeping motion from left to right, and said "All of you are going to Hell" and promptly, as if it was part of his spiel, pulled out a cigarette and lit it, leaning forward on the podium. Our teacher very quickly and forcefully "asked" him to leave, needless to say. But my question truly is, is this theology so prevalent in our country? I've never encountered it in an organic way - i.e. in any kind of religious group considering their own doctrine - ever. I've "encountered" protestant Christian groups?! I know what they're all about (Lord have mercy upon their beautiful intentions!), and they all "hate" (not truly "hate," but "REGRET-") Calvinist theology. They've all told me they "hate" ("regret," as they correct themselves), Calvinists, purposely making themselves distinct from it because of its somewhat-gross implications. But, then again, this is just in the locations local to me. Which is the problem - how widespread is this ideology? B/c I have never found it but once in my own enclosed, Orthodox, society - fighting against it. Which is fine (I have the Orthodox interpretation!)

It is prevalent as a mindset that has put the intellect as the interpretor of God's revelation instead of cooperating with the Holy Spirit in understanding the Gospel and elevating the intellectual conclusion as to what constitute's justification in salvation. The breakdown of theology has resulted in anything from fundamentalism, to universalism, to worldly ecumenism etc.

1) Most protestants do indeed reject hard-line Sola Fide, because they know it is a logically untenable position. They still often separate faith and works, however, whereas the Orthodox do not separate them.

Please distinguish between justification by faith and salvation by faith. Justification by faith answers the question "How do we know we have peace with God?" Even Scriptures answers this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". (Acts 16:31). Sanctification, on the other hand, is required for salvation as much as justification. But one cannot be sanctified without first being justified becaus without justification there's none of the theological virtues, there's no hope because the alienation from God that exists due to sin. Invariably one will be buy God off with good works rather than accepting oneself as a sinner who has done nothing to merit salvation. These good works done out of pride, fear, or a desire to manipulate God do not contribute to ones salvation.

I think Protestant monergist theology is sort of cludgy, on the other hand its wrong to misrepresent it.

Logged

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther

I think Protestant monergist theology is sort of cludgy, on the other hand its wrong to misrepresent it.

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

Justification by faith answers the question "How do we know we have peace with God?" Even Scriptures answers this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". (Acts 16:31). Sanctification, on the other hand, is required for salvation as much as justification. But one cannot be sanctified without first being justified becaus without justification there's none of the theological virtues, there's no hope because the alienation from God that exists due to sin. Invariably one will be buy God off with good works rather than accepting oneself as a sinner who has done nothing to merit salvation. These good works done out of pride, fear, or a desire to manipulate God do not contribute to ones salvation.

I have no idea what you're attempting to argue for or against here.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 04:25:44 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

Well, it could be argued that the free will some of the Fathers defended is not an adequate paradigm to describe human behavior, open to philosophical critique (I myself deny the validity of libertarian free will). As far as philosophies go, Stoicism is not dependent on free will for instance, rather than looking for blame, it focuses on insight and compassion. Plus Jesus tells us not to judge, or we will be judged... so why buy into a philosophy that's all about assigning blame (libertarianism). What are your thoughts? I think alot of harm we do throwing around judgements like "good" and "bad" without being honest and admitting a great deal of our moral judegments are emotivist and anthropocentric.

Logged

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

Well, it could be argued that the free will some of the Fathers defended is not an adequate paradigm to describe human behavior, open to philosophical critique (I myself deny the validity of libertarian free will).

Jesus dieing on the cross and being raised on the third day was up for philosophical critique when Paul preached in Athens.

Quote

As far as philosophies go, Stoicism is not dependent on free will for instance, rather than looking for blame, it focuses on insight and compassion.

Quote

Plus Jesus tells us not to judge, or we will be judged... so why buy into a philosophy that's all about assigning blame (libertarianism). What are your thoughts? I think alot of harm we do throwing around judgements like "good" and "bad" without being honest and admitting a great deal of our moral judegments are emotivist and anthropocentric.

I'm not persdonally assigning blame to anyone. We will be held accountable for everything we say and do, but that is God's place to judge us, not ours. Just because God is our judge, doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions. It also doesn't change the fact that we have a responsibility to respond to God out of love.

This is not my personal opinion. This is what the Church teaches as it has received from Christ and preserved.

Quote from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.x.html

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.

Quote from: http://lane.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.htm

DECREE IV.We believe the tri-personal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the maker of all things visible and invisible; and the invisible are the angelic Powers, rational souls, and demons, — though God made not the demons what they afterwards became by their own choice, — but the visible are heaven and what is under heaven. And because the Maker is good by nature, He made all things very good {cf. Genesis 1:31} whatsoever He hath made, nor can He ever be the maker of evil. But if there be aught evil, that is to say, sin, come about contrarily to the Divine Will, in man or in demon, — for that evil is simply in nature, we do not acknowledge, — it is either of man, or of the devil. For it is a true and infallible rule, that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can it at all by just reasoning be attributed to God.

DECREE V.We believe all things that are, whether visible or invisible, to be governed by the providence of God; but although God foreknoweth evils, and permitteth them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. But when such are come about, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting thereon something for the better. And we ought to adore, but not curiously pry into, Divine Providence in its ineffable and only partially revealed judgments. {cf. Romans 11:33} Albeit what is revealed to us in Divine Scripture concerning it as being conducive to eternal life, we ought honestly to search out, and then unhesitatingly to interpret the same agreeably to primary notions of God.

If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent? Keep in mind that Calvinists say God has two wills, a provisional will and a perfect will.

I still have problems throwing around "good" and "evil" as if they must mean something in an omniscient perspective. Is a hurricane or earthquake in itself an evil, or is it merely evil relative to the choices and preferences of human beings? Does this make sense? Why must we be constrained to an anthropomorphic vision of good and evil? Thinking moralisticly about the world like this keeps us away from a detached perspective which can lead to insight (think of what a scientist does, for instance).

« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 05:55:13 PM by Daedelus1138 »

Logged

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther

Calvinists used these verses to back up their claims about original sin. They say that being “dead in transgressions and sins” means we couldn’t have any free-will or choose in any way to believe in Christ. Dead men can’t choose or act in any way they say. They saythat to believe that man has free-will to accept God’s grace contradicts these scriptures and if one thinks so then one denies salvation by grace alone and adds works.In other words, God doesn't do all in salvation (semi-Pelagianism) if man has free-will.

This isn't from an Orthodox perspective, but it is very informative from an academic perspective.

Quote

What is the Orthodox response to this?

I don't know if we have one that focuses solely on the 5 points of Calvinism. I am writing a book about the issue, but there is no telling when I'll be done with that. On the issue of original sin you can buy a number of books.

As well as:

Quote

I have read several things by Orthodox writers about orginal sin, but I haven’t seen anyone deal with these specific verses or Calvinists beliefs on them. Does anyone know what the Orthodox Church teaches and responds toCalvinism on this regard?

I am writing a book at the moment, and so I won't be of much help until I'm done.

Quote

Any former Calvinists here have an answer?

P.S.

I was a former Arminian protestant, but I was never a Calvinist protestant.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 03:52:17 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent? Keep in mind that Calvinists say God has two wills, a provisional will and a perfect will.

God is all-powerful because he holds all things in existence. Nothing exists without his continued will that it be so. But God is love by nature, and free-will is a necessary aspect of love. He cannot force people to do his will because it would go against his nature.

I was a Calvinist my whole life before I converted, and I don't remember anything about God having two wills. Can you point me to one of the Calvinist confessions or catechisms that explain this?

I still have problems throwing around "good" and "evil" as if they must mean something in an omniscient perspective. Is a hurricane or earthquake in itself an evil, or is it merely evil relative to the choices and preferences of human beings? Does this make sense? Why must we be constrained to an anthropomorphic vision of good and evil? Thinking moralisticly about the world like this keeps us away from a detached perspective which can lead to insight (think of what a scientist does, for instance).

An earthquake itself is morally neutral.

We need not go to the extreme of saying that every "act of God" is a deliberate action on God's part—ie, God is angry at Japan so he sends a tsunami at them (though I think this can happen, but I don't think it is the normative explanation for natural disasters). Neither do we need to go to the other extreme—ie, God set the universe into motion and sits back to watch like the god of deism. A lot of things in Orthodoxy require more nuance than these broad strokes.

A more nuanced, and I think correct, approach would be to say that sin has caused a breakdown in the natural realm. Natural disasters happen because of mankind's rebellion against God, and in some fundamental way that affects nature itself (because we are both noetic and material creatures, and each aspect affects the other). Our sin causes more stress upon nature, more pent-up energy, and as the world drifts further away from God's intent for it, it breaks down into chaos. While at Creation God created order from chaos, sin is changing it back into chaos.

It's like a bridge. When it is in its perfect and new condition, it is very strong and sturdy. But if pieces start to fall off, it gets rusty and cracked, soon it will collapse. This is because it went from the state of order (the creator's intent) to a state of chaos. That is what we see in mankind as well.

That is why, for instance, the holiest of saints can command wild animals and do other supernatural things. In their direct sphere of influence, the Fall is reversed and we get a tiny picture of Paradise once again.

If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?

Nothing happens without God's permission, but God permits humans to make mistakes in freedom. He withdraws the use of His omnipotence while maintaining His omnipotence.

« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 12:02:30 AM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

He's America's famous Calvinist? What about the Westboro Baptist Church? Would they be considered infamous and not famous? Perhaps you meant Pastor Mark was the most favoured Calvinist, not the most famous?

Logged

This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think? DO we have the same God as Calvin?

Is it possible that the differences in theology (our conceptualisation of God, the salvation of the elect irrespective of their sins, the damnation of the non-elect, again irrespective of their personal goodness or their sins) and also in anthropology(total depravity, etc.) are so disparate that something utterly new was introduced by Calvin? Can traditional Christianity and Calvinism be reconciled?

Hilaire Belloc, in a fascinating essay, answers in the negative - he says that the God of Calvin is not the Christian God. I will just reproduce Belloc's more insightful paragraphs:

"......What Calvin did was this. He took what is one of the oldest andmost perilous directives of mankind, the sense of Fate. He isolated it,and he made it supreme, by fitting it with the kneading of a powerfulmind, into the scheme which Christian men still traditionally associated with the holiness and authority of their ancestral religion.

"........ God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind. That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare. Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with the old pagan horror of compulsion: "Ananke." He reintroduced the Inexorable.

"....... Yes, [Calvin teaches that] God had become Man and had died to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as he had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing. The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind; the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form. He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Goodand of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that OnePrinciple he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessaryand eternal suffering."

If Belloc is right, then Calvin created a God which is not the Biblicalone, but a return to an older concept of divinity- the God of Fate, theGod of the Inexorable against whom there is no appeal. All ispredetermined, predestined. Fate rules again, as it did in most of thebelief systems of the pagan world.

Fr Ambrose

One of the major problems with Calvinism is that Calvin was a Nestorian. He denied the deification of the human nature of Christ, the communication of attributes, and so emphasized the differences between the human and divine natures of Christ that he fell into Nestorianism. That is why his sacramental theology is so weak and why salvation according to him is all God's doing.

Good answer! Thanks for your response! I think you are absolutely correct that Calvinism runs contrary to common sense and the "plain meaning of Scripture". Ironically it is the Calvinism who say that doctrine should be formulated from "the plain meaning of Scripture."

P.S.

There is another very important why Orthodox reject the Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It is based on an incorrect translation of Romans 5:2. Calvin took the doctrine from Blessed Augustine. Augustine could not read Greek. He developed his doctrine of original sin from an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. In the Greek Romans 5:12 reads, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --" However, the Latin translation reads, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." From this Augustine developed the idea that we are all born guilty of Adam's sin. From there it is only a short leap to Calvin's doctrine of total depravity.

His wife was a sweet woman, and a loving mother when I knew her. We babysat their kids within a couple days/weeks of the birth of their second child. She had a C-section, then went out on a date with Mark not long after. I watched as she frantically cleaned the house before leaving. We babysat their eldest A. for the evening and brought them dinner. Grace was literally pregnant our breastfeeding for almost a solid decade. All the kids are about 2 years or less apart. And she had a classical incision C-section with every single one. So all Mark's whining about being sexually unfulfilled just ticks me off. Grace was one of those women that looked like she had never had a baby almost immediately after. I get the impression that anything less wouldn't have been OK.

Profanity replaced with something more appropriate for the Public Forum -PtA

His wife was a sweet woman, and a loving mother when I knew her. We babysat their kids within a couple days of the birth of their second child. She had a C-section, then went out on a date with Mark not long after. We babysat their eldest A. for the evening and brought them dinner. Grace was literally pregnant our breastfeeding for almost a solid decade. All the kids are about 2 years or less apart. And she had a classical incision C-section with every single one. So all Mark's whining about being sexually unfulfilled just pisses me off. Grace was one of those women that looked like she had never had a baby almost immediately after. I get the impression that anything less wouldn't have been OK.

So you are not aware of his prophetic vision sent from God of her "infidelity" that he structured a book around? Maybe you can be my proxy. I would love to . . . I guess we are getting off topic and this is public where I don't discuss my less than peaceful desires toward others.

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.

How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.

How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?Selam

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.

How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?Selam

Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.

How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?Selam

Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

You are correct sir. My feeble attempt at humor.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.

How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?Selam

Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

You are correct sir. My feeble attempt at humor.

Selam

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

He claims that his dad used to wake him up by slugging him. According to Driscoll, that stopped when he slugged his dad back. But he is known for overemphasizing his "manliness" so I would take that claim with a shaker of salt.

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

You're never better than when you're right and using words like "odious." He is odious. There really isn't a more fitting word.

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

Mark Driscoll shows one of the major flaws of Protestantism. Instead of looking to the Holy Tradition which is the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the worship of the Church and, finally, what the Church has taught for 2,000 years, Protestants tend to look to one great preacher for guidance on how to understand the Gospel. Because the emphasis is on preaching rather than the presence of God through the Eucharist, Protestants tend to built personality cults around great preachers. It does not matter what they say, but rather how well they say it. I do not know about Mark Driscoll's preaching, but look at Joel Osteen, who is treated like rock star by the media. Here is a man with no theological education, not ordained by any recognized denomination, who has built a mega church by telling people what they want to hear. His church is like an Oklahoma river after a thunderstorm, mile wide and an inch deep. Yet he is treated like a great theologian by the media, partially because he does not represent a threat to the secular culture, but is instead part of the secular culture which has dumbed down Christianity. For example, I read today that he believes that homosexuality is sinful, but chooses not to preach on it. In other words, he keeps his mouth shut on anything that might challenge his audience to real repentance. Men like him are more dangerous than the most militant atheists, because they lull people into a false sense that they are really Christian, without the need for real repentance or the necessity of real struggle to life a Christian life.

Fr. John W. MorrisYou're never better than when you're right and using words like "odious." He is odious. There really isn't a more fitting word.

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently. He also speaks out against anything he think is too "girly" for men to do. He is very much the grunting caveman that thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and always sexually available. He even goes so far to say, oddly enough, that if a man masturbates that he is practicing borderline homosexuality.

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently. He also speaks out against anything he think is too "girly" for men to do. He is very much the grunting caveman that thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and always sexually available. He even goes so far to say, oddly enough, that if a man masturbates that he is practicing borderline homosexuality.

just as a matter of interest, I wonder what bearing the responses ##109 ffhave to do with Orthodoxy and Calvinism? Have I missed something here?

It has just slightly more bearing on the subject than your post asking if it has bearing on the subject. Threads derail all the time.

It has bearing insomuch as many people have incorrect views of Mark Driscoll. For example, the post saying he doesn't teach against homosexuality is incorrect. I heard more about homosexuality in the just one year of decade I attended MH than I have in the last 6 years being Orthodox.

I see. (I think.)So Holy Scripture is in error.God did - not - so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...well, I'm sure you recognize the true quote from St. John.I also think that with very little effort one can use the New Testament to refute TULIP; but not now, it's 1:15 am and I'm about to hit the sack.Good night andGod blessKyril.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Mark Driscoll is indeed a bit of a joke, and recently he's done himself in a bit and gotten called out on it. I never payed too much attention to him, not being an evangelical Christian.

There's something about Calvinism that attracts alot of authoritarian males who need to overcompensate for an ungrounded masculinity. Perhaps because it pretends to give so much scholastic certainty about all things related to God.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 05:33:10 PM by Daedelus1138 »

Logged

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther

Although we recognize that Calvinism and Augustinianism is wrong, I have noticed a tendency in Orthodoxy for people to go too far the other way in an effort to refute these two false doctrines. Pelagius was just as heretical as Calvin, and we need to make sure that this is kept in mind for fear of making light of God's sovereignty.

Logged

"God became man, so that men might become gods." -- St. Athanasius

"His was the word that spake it,He took the bread and brake it,And what is word doth make it,That I believe and take it." - Queen Elizabeth I